What is a Christian fundamentalist?

[Clete]

A good thought Bernie. And welcome to TOL by the way.

I would take only one issue with what you said...

Originally posted by Bernie22
Reasonable, rational human beings, however, should be able to agree that literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth that the resurrection took place.

Any other account of history might have "errors" but the Bible isn't simply some history book, it is the Word of God. It claims itself to be inspired by God Himself.

We are not in possession of the original autographs so I would give accent to the existence of a stray scribal error or two that has no effect on whatever point is being made, but an outright error is not acceptable in a writing that claims to "God breathed".

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[BChristianK]

PureX said:

And what would this "truth" be, I wonder....

Most people would agree that truth is "what is" (reality) and interestingly enough "what is" (reality) is infinitely complex (as we experience it, anyway)

Since when did you, a finite being, start experiencing reality as infinitely complex…?

while it is not infinitely simple (on the scale of simplicity, reality can only be reduced to one single whole). I would like you to explain how recognizing the (apparently) infinite complexity of reality is avoiding the "truth" of reality, and how ignoring the complexity of reality would make it more "real" (true).

I’d like you to first explain how you can be so sure that reality is infinitely complex, then maybe you can make philosophizer answer the question that is predicated upon that assumption….

I think fundamentalism is more an ego-centric reaction to complexity and intellectualism that it is any particular set of ideological beliefs. It's main characteristic is extreme over-simplification with the intent of gaining, through the illusion of self-righteousness, what one secretly feels they lack in intellectual sophistication.

Thanks for that extremely over-simplified definition of fundamentalism...




Grace and Peace

 

[BChristianK]

Knight has a great question. Especially since you get two kind of folk butting heads frequently on TOL, those who think that Fundy’s are back country hicks with little to no education poundin’ the pulpit, and those who still like some of the trappings of Christianity but who the fundy’s think have basically sold Jesus out to follow the hollow philosophies of the world..

Now that we have those stereotypes out of the way, there are a few questions that I think go along with knights question. First, what is the difference between evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Christians?

Second, Clete gave us a working formula:

1. Biblical inerrancy
2. The divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Jesus died to redeem humankind
5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth.

So what would Clete or anyone else call a 4 pointer.
I’ll take 1-4, and leave 5 as an amillennialist?

Third, given that Duder is correct, fundamentalism being a reactive movement to the liberal interpretation of scripture in the early 20th century, where does fundamentalism become pro-active as apposed to reactive?

Finally, Clete said:

For example, fundamentalist believe that the universe and everything in it was created by God in 6, literal 24 hour days and that He rested on the 7th day.

Which just “shows to go ya” that not all self-proclaimed fundamentalists line up neatly in a row when it comes to some doctrines. Many of the folks I know who consider themselves very fundamental on some issues, such as the inerrancy of scripture, are less dogmatic about a literal 6 day creation.
So is fundamentalism really that monolithic?

Finally, for those of the more liberal persuasion, why is it that that your most common usage for the term ‘fundamentalist’ is derogatory instead of descriptive?

Furthermore, why is it that when the fundy's use the scriptures to declare truth they are accused of being ignorantly dogmatic, but when liberal Christians appeal to principles that contradict scripture their apparent inconsistency is above criticism?

Grace and Peace

 

[Lighthouse]

Am I fundamentalist or not?! You people can't explain anything to me, without disagreeing! :chuckle:

 

[Duder]

BCK -

First, allow me to apologize both to you and to all TOL members for my harsh words directed at you several days ago. I cannot even recall what the problem was - and so I bet I was way out of line. You are one of the most intelligent, evenhanded and eloquent posters here. I am sorry, dude.

Which just “shows to go ya” that not all self-proclaimed fundamentalists line up neatly in a row when it comes to some doctrines. Many of the folks I know who consider themselves very fundamental on some issues, such as the inerrancy of scripture, are less dogmatic about a literal 6 day creation.
So is fundamentalism really that monolithic?

That is a very interesting problem. How far away from the most naievly literal interpretation of the Bible text can one move and still be considered a fundamentalist? I don't think your friends who doubt the six-day creation have necessarily crossed the line. Neither, I think, have people who accept an evolutionary model of biology.

We can't deny the fact that moving from 6 days to 5 billion years - or that going from a literal, divinely-sculpted mud figurine to a descendant of lower primates is a move away from literalism and toward a metaphorical understanding. But I don't think such a person has leapt off the platform.

Someone who is dedicated to interpreting the Bible literally to the greatest extent he can without offending logic or experience, is still a fundamentalist - even if he quits belief in the young earth and the global deluge.

Moreover, I would not be inclined to make a list of points that must be believed in order to be a fundamentalist. Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses will not pass Clete's test, and yet I am sure they are still predominantly fundamentalistic. The defining characteristic of a fundamentalist is his predisposition or his preference for interpreting his canon literally.

 

[Flipper]

I think that an insistence on biblical inerrancy is a sure sign of Christian fundamentalism. Having said that, not all Christian fundamentalists are biblical inerrantists.

Of course, every viewpoint or doctrine has its fundamentalists. Atheism is a case in point. I'm generally not wild about those I consider to be atheistic fundamentalists either.

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Bernie22

I believe the Bible is both literally inerrant and spiritually infallible, and don't feel that mental gymnastics are necessary to defend this assertion.

AND

Reasonable, rational human beings, however, should be able to agree that literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth that the reusurrection took place.

I don't see that "mental gymnastics" is necessary to defend Bible inerrancy. Probably just need to first establish definitions.

True. You are giving slightly different definition to biblical inerrancy than i have used to hear. There are contradictory claims and facts written in the Bible. Do you agree then that "literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth"? I would not call it belief in literal inerrancy anymore, but if you find it OK, then maybe even i can fit into belief of biblical inerrancy in this case

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Any other account of history might have "errors" but the Bible isn't simply some history book, it is the Word of God. It claims itself to be inspired by God Himself.

And still if we are honest we see clearly some contradictions in the historical accounts of the Bible. Of course you can be "clever" and interpret them away, but in this case i can take whatever ancient historian and interpret his errors also away and show you how correct his account is!

BTW, 2 Tim 3:16 can be translated also: "Every inspired scripture is God breathed..." So as you see it makes the Bible lot more trustable, and explains why in Early Christianity they used lot more scriptures than our canon today consists of.

 

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia
BTW, 2 Tim 3:16 can be translated also: "Every inspired scripture is God breathed..."

Only by people with no knowledge of ancient Greek, or the ability to understand and translate it. That is in no way at all an acceptable translation of that passage however.

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by BChristianK

Furthermore, why is it that when the fundy's use the scriptures to declare truth they are accused of being ignorantly dogmatic, but when liberal Christians appeal to principles that contradict scripture their apparent inconsistency is above criticism?

Because fundy claims his interpretation of truth to be the final truth and everything that contradicts to it is false. If he would not be so exclusive, he wouldnt be fundy anymore.

No liberal interpretation of the Bible is above criticism. It is handled the same way as every scientific hypotesis, or theory is handled (and theology is humanitarian science). If you read the books of liberal Bible scholars you will see how much they criticise even each other, and how their old theories are sometimes forsaken after new finds come up, etc.

Surely there are liberal scholars who have fundy mentality: my interpretation vs. false interpretation. But we cannot call him true, and honest scholar then anymore. True scholar in whatever field of science he is working is always open to modify his theories if new findings demand it.

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Am I fundamentalist or not?! You people can't explain anything to me, without disagreeing! :chuckle:

Yes, you are. You sound almost like me 8-12 years ago

 

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Berean Todd

Only by people with no knowledge of ancient Greek, or the ability to understand and translate it. That is in no way at all an acceptable translation of that passage however.

Hmm, interesting that you are calling a scholar who has way more knowledge of ancient Greek than most people who have studied theology as somebody without no knowledge of it.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by BChristianK Since when did you, a finite being, start experiencing reality as infinitely complex…?

Being finite, all I have to do is encounter complexity that surpasses my ability to comprehend, for it to appear infinite to me, even though it may or may not be. You can clearly see this in the post you are referring to, by my use of the word "appearance", but of course you ignored this so that you could throw another red herring into the discussion.

Originally posted by BChristianK I’d like you to first explain how you can be so sure that reality is infinitely complex, then maybe you can make philosophizer answer the question that is predicated upon that assumption….

As you are well aware, nothing in my previous post indicated any surety involving infinite complexity, and this is just another ploy on your part to avoid having to explain your own assertions, which by now I am quite sure that you're not going to do.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Duder BCK -

First, allow me to apologize both to you and to all TOL members for my harsh words directed at you several days ago. I cannot even recall what the problem was - and so I bet I was way out of line. You are one of the most intelligent, evenhanded and eloquent posters here. I am sorry, dude.

Funny, all I seem to get out of him are annoying cheap intellectual tricks and an endless supply of red herrings.

Originally posted by Duder That is a very interesting problem. How far away from the most naievly literal interpretation of the Bible text can one move and still be considered a fundamentalist?

This is exactly why I don't think the main characteristic of fundamentalism is doctrinal. Put any two fundamentalists in a room alone, and they will fight with each other about who is the more righteous. Put a hundred of them in a room with each other and they will divide up into factions and fight about who is the most righteous. The overwhelmingly common trait among fundamentalists is not a particular doctrinal position, it's their obsession with righteousness. The one thing they all agree on is that they are right and anyone who disagrees in even the slightest way is automatically wrong by default, which is why they can't ever really agree with anyone, even each other.

If the definition of fundamentalism were doctrinal, then there couldn't be fundamentalists in different religions.

 

[Clete]

Look, the question is "What is Fundamentalism?" not, "how many different ways can we twist ourselves around and still allow ourselves to be fundamentalist?".

I submit that you guys don't get to define the term for yourselves, if you did then the word would no longer have any meaning.

You absolutely cannot under any circumstance believe in a evolutionary model of biology and still consider yourself a fundamentalist. You might still be a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. The same goes for those with a belief that the creation took anything but 6 days. And the same goes for Amillennialists; they all are not fundamentalists.
Isn't this somewhat obviously true? You guys remove the first and primary plank of Fundamentalism and then try to say that you are still standing on the platform! Well, I'm sorry but your not. Otherwise, the term Fundamentalism is meaningless. You want to liberalize the term and make it more comfortable because nobody wants to think that they don't hold to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, but that is the whole reason why Fundamentalism came about in the first place. It wasn't brought up to make everybody feel good, on the contrary, Fundamentalism was started specifically to militate against people being allowed to follow the dictates of their own hearts and to bring Christianity back to its Biblical foundations.
Say I say no, if you do not hold to all five points at least in principle then you are not a fundamentalist, period. That's not an insult, its just an acknowledgment of the meaning of the word "Fundamentalism"

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Bernie22
I don't see that "mental gymnastics" is necessary to defend Bible inerrancy. Probably just need to first establish definitions.

By "literal", I mean it means what it says, word for word.
If the world was created in 6 days, we are talking about 6 24-hour days.
Nevermind that the bible says that to God a day is a 1000 years, and a 1000 years a day.
It says, "on the first day" and that's what it mean.

The sun is created on the 4th day - not only odd that with a solar system of 7 planets rotating around nothing, the sun is then put into place, and on the 4th day, you have literal night and day.

But nevermind that. The bible said a day, and we mean 24 hours,

Mental Gymnastics.

The bible is really poetic, and you have to think about that if you want to understand it.
Jesus did not say he was LIKE a door. He said he was a door.
He did not say he was LIKE a vine. He said he was a vine.

I remember watching a great movie called Lady Jane Grey, about the churches struggle for power in England. Lady Jane Grey was reading the bible, and eating the host like potato chips. The priest was shocked, and said, "You blasphemer!" And she said, "What? It's a host. It's not truly the body. Christ said, "I am a door, I am a vine. Was he truly a door? A vine?"

She is later beheaded, under the pretext of not believing the wine and host are the body and blood literally, so the Catholic church could regain power.

 

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by BChristianK
Furthermore, why is it that when the fundy's use the scriptures to declare truth they are accused of being ignorantly dogmatic, but when liberal Christians appeal to principles that contradict scripture their apparent inconsistency is above criticism?

Grace and Peace

I don't agree with all liberals. That's part of liberal thinking.
You approach a subject, listen, then decided whether or not your thinking should change, or the other person isn't correct.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, seem to never go into it with an open mind. My mother, sadly, was taught that if she ever questioned anything from the bible, that it was a sign that she didn't love God, and would go to hell.

Even Othodox Jews question the true meaning of the scriptures.

When quoting verses, as Enyart as done repeatedly, things are taken out of context of to whom it was said, why, the context of the story, and misused in order to support their cause.

And more often than not, it is the easiest road.
The person is threatened, rather than given FreeWill.
The person has guilt offered, instead of forgiveness.
There is a suggestion that one should be offensive, and brag about it.
There is a suggestion that you should name call freely, because you want to be like Jesus.

But Jesus preached a lot about being kind to one another.
He talked about feeding the poor, forgiving one another, giving more than what is asked.

But never mind that. It's more fun to be mean.

And no matter what you say, their hearts are hardened with self-righteousness.

It's really depressing.

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I would say that my statement is truer to the fundamentalist position in that I simply believe that the Bible means what is seems to say when it says...

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

However, I would not go so far as to say that Calvinists are not Fundamentalist. They do believe that God (Jesus) died in payment for sin. They just dispute whether or not His blood paid for it in part or in full.

And by the way, I am not an Armenian. Armenians are way to Calvinistic for my taste, thank you very much.

Resting in Him,
Clete

But I think you would have to agree that open theism broke off from Arminism. They saw the flaws with the conditional election piece among other things and came up with this ideology known as the "open view."

How can you say "Arminians are way to Calvinistic"??? Maybe you do not understand TULIP compared to the 5 points of Arminism....

 

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

I don't agree with all liberals. That's part of liberal thinking.
You approach a subject, listen, then decided whether or not your thinking should change, or the other person isn't correct.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, seem to never go into it with an open mind. My mother, sadly, was taught that if she ever questioned anything from the bible, that it was a sign that she didn't love God, and would go to hell.

Even Othodox Jews question the true meaning of the scriptures.

When quoting verses, as Enyart as done repeatedly, things are taken out of context of to whom it was said, why, the context of the story, and misused in order to support their cause.

And more often than not, it is the easiest road.
The person is threatened, rather than given FreeWill.
The person has guilt offered, instead of forgiveness.
There is a suggestion that one should be offensive, and brag about it.
There is a suggestion that you should name call freely, because you want to be like Jesus.

But Jesus preached a lot about being kind to one another.
He talked about feeding the poor, forgiving one another, giving more than what is asked.

But never mind that. It's more fun to be mean.

And no matter what you say, their hearts are hardened with self-righteousness.

It's really depressing.

You may appreciate this: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

 

[beanieboy]

One of the "mental gymnastics" I have found is in translation.

For example, there are 13 Greek words for love.
In english, we have 1.

Jesus asks Peter, Do you love me?
Peter says, "Yes, I love you.
Jesus says, "Feed my sheep.

He continues asking him two more times.
I would read the story, and say, "Mom, why is Jesus being annoying, and doubting Peter?"

But in Greek, Jesus is saying, Do you love me with all your heart, soul and mind?
And Peter says, "Yes, I love you like a brother."
It's a lesser love.

The eye of a needle?
They weren't talking about a sewing needle, as most people assume.
They were talking about the doorway to the city, where you have to get a camel to crawl on it's knees. Camels hate to crawl, and spit, and resist you.

Using the sewing needle definition means that it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven without being squished to death.
Using the real definition means that getting a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven is difficult, and you have to actually drag him through the pearly gates.

Completely different meanings.

Inerrant?
Possibly.

Do translations and our definitions change the meanings?
Obviously.

But you can't argue that with a Fundamentalist.